Talk:Assyrian/Revision

The term "Assyrians"

OK. The immediate problem I see is the use of "Assyrians" with quotation marks. That would infuriate the group in question and won't be productive. So there is a need to both convey the historical truth and let people call themselves fancy names (this fancy name IS already a part of modern history no matter the reasons). I suggest also adding some information on the specific dialects of Modern Aramaic that are native to some of Assyrians and possibly literature. Maybe I will be able to contribute something in this area, though I don't promise. (anon. reader)

This is the phrase in question: "Assyrians" is a catch-all term used to identify indigenous peoples of north Iraq, who identify themselves as Aramaeans and Chaldeans. It is a standard convention in written English to use quotes to identify a word that is being employed as a label. The anon. reader may be ignorant of this convention; so, I have adjusted it. How would it read to a foreigner as:

The designation "Assyrians" is a catch-all term used to identify indigenous peoples of north Iraq, who identify themselves as Aramaeans and Chaldeans. Wetman 04:47, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are right when you say that quotation marks can identify a label. Unfortunately they are often employed to convey irony as well. In cases like "velocity" and "tensor" the meaning is clear, but in our case it is bound to arouse suspicion, especially among foreigners :) Anyway, I was mainly concerned with this:

All these "Assyrians" read and write...

or this:

Though the modern "Assyrians" assert... (anon. reader)

When we discuss the term "Assyrians" we use quotes to show that it is the term we are discussing, not the people themselves. Just a convention. It is my impression that all these people prefer to be called Aramaeans or Chaldeans rather than embrace the term "Assyrians." If some group is attempting to co-opt the term "Assyrian" to the exclusion of others, this should be touched on in the entry. Wetman 06:14, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Possible Zoroastrian link

Hmmm, I wonder if any of these modern Assyrians are followers of Zoroaster, given the proximity to Iran, and the persecution zoroastrians have suffered.

No connections have been suggested. --Wetman

role of Assyrians in 9th century + Islamic public libraires

I wonder also what could have been the role of learned Assyrians in the origins of the first public librairies of "our" "Christian" era, which started to appear in many arab cities in the 9th century. They were called "halls of Science" or dar al-'ilm and were more extensive and widespread than is usually known. Some of them had large staffs of translators. I wrote a bit more on these institutions in the history section of the Library article. AlainV 22:30, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Disambiguation texts

By the way, if you type 'Assyrians' you are redirected to 'Assyria'. There is a need of making (later?) a disambiguation page catching both 'Assyrian' and 'Assyrians' to distinguish between 'Ancient Assyrians' going to 'Assyria' and 'Modern Assyrians' going ... where? Maybe the page you began working on should be called 'Modern Assyrians'? (anon. reader)

I have changed the disambiguation text at the head of Assyria to read: This article concerns the ancient Mesopotamian kingdom. For the modern-day peoples in northern Iraq and neighboring areas, see Assyrian. Will this pass? Wetman 06:19, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In a way, it is even better than making a buffer page, the reader will get directly to the historical facts on Assyrians. But maybe the name needs to be changed eventually from 'Assyrian' (that says nothing and can be applied to the ancients as well) to something like "Modern Assyrians". (anon. reader)

"Modern Assyrian" is making assumptions of genetic and cultural continuity, assumptions where Wikipedia will be taking no stand. Wetman 21:02, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I changed it back to 'Assyrian', though my proposal is still valid, I think. Added some material on their language(s) and different scholarly opinions on the use of the term "Assyrian". (anon.reader)

Wetman, thank you for correcting. One correction went wrong - read this passage: "Even among linguists, the supporters of the term "Assyrian" ... admit that ... the term is misleading" This version is problematic - it implies that being a linguist makes "pro-Assyrian" supporter less inclined to admit that the term is misleading. In fact, just the opposite is true. Eh ... depending on the time of day it maybe too much mental gymnastics, but I'm sure you will understand what I mean ;)

However it's done, the point is to set the "supporters of the term "Assyrian"" squarely among professional linguists... for there may be other motives for supporting the term, and we don't want to go there. Wetman 03:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, the experience was ... what should I say ... instructive. Good luck with the article. God help the readers. (anon. reader)

(Now why was offense taken? The politics and rivalries, perhaps split along Catholic/Orthodox faultlines, are impenetrable to an outsider. This article should also make clearer to the average reader what everyone's problem concerning "Assyrian" is...)

This revision needs to be made acceptable

Before embarking on editing this piece, I wish to point out its deficiencies in general terms.

1. There are numerous factual errors (numbers, figures, dates).

Excellent. You're in charge of these factual corrections. Wikipedia is transparent: we'll check on your corrections. --W.

2. There are false assertions made.

We don't want any false assertions. Please copy each false assertion and paste it here, where it can be disentangled and corrected. --W.

3. There are dubious assertions made yet they are not qualified.

Slanted opinions are also unwelcome, even to those of us who have no cultural investment whatsoever merely an interest in accuracy. --W.

4. Most important: the article has bought into the idea that Assyrians are not who they say they are. By what right can anyone deny a group its right of self-identification or question its historical continuity? How is this different from the Arabist policies of the Syrian regime, and the former Iraqi regime, in which everyone is an Arab? How is this different from the Turkish policy of "only Turks live in Turkey", hence there are no Assyrians, Armenians, Greeks and Kurds in Turkey?

Every cultural assertion should be voiced. The right to question these assertions is a Western right. Surely, not every cultural assertion is automatically authentic: Turkish assertions of Turkicity are not a model adopted for Wikipedia. -W.

I am an Assyrian, I was born in Baghdad and now live in America. I do not have, and should not have, to prove my identity. What other nation is subjected to such a requirement? Do Jews have to prove they are Jewish? Do Italians? Irish? French?

A reader walks away from this article with significant doubt that Assyrians are really Assyrians, by which I mean they are the indigenous people of north Iraq, North East Syria, South East Turkey and North West Iran -- in other words, that these Assyrians are the descendants of the same Assyrians who lived their in pre-Christian times. With this doubt in mind, it is conceivable that a reader will conclude that Assyrians are Arabs or Turks or Persians who just happen to be Christian and speak neo-Syriac (case in point: see the "possible Zoroastrian link" comment above).

Consider the following:

1. Linguistic continuity -- Assyrians speak Assyrian Aramaic, with hundreds of Akkadian words in their core vocabulary (http://www.aina.org/aol/peter/language.htm).

2. Cultural continuity -- Assyrians have preserved cultural customs and practices, artistic traditions, et cetera, that go back to the pre-Christian past.

3. Written and oral continuity -- Assyrians have written records and oral traditions that clearly link them to their Assyrian forefathers, and that clearly show that they have always been aware of their lineage and cultural and ethnic heritage (example: http://www.aina.org/books/tatian.htm).

4. Geographical continuity -- they are autochthonous, there is no written or oral tradition that they came from ELSEWHERE.

Now, unless you are prepared to refute the above four points, this article cannot dispute the historical identity of Assyrians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepa (talk • contribs)

Excellent! Make these points about cultural continuity, don't just assert them, and you'll have made a real contribution to Assyrian/Revision. Add these links to the new version of the article, please, with a precis of their content. We'll get a good, neutral article on modern Assyrians and their culture and history yet! --Wetman 20:44, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've been working on Aramaic language and Syriac language, and I would like to do a few articles on the Neo-aramaic dialects. Their basis is the colloquial Eastern Aramaic dialects. These have been heavily influenced by the classical Syriac of Edessa and, in modern times, by Turkish, Kurdish, Persian and Arabic. The administrative Aramaic language of the Assyrian Empire was also an Eastern Aramaic dialect, but its development into the Imperial Aramaic of Babylon and Persia makes it quite different. They are the same language in so far as Old English and Modern English are the same language: it's factually correct, but practically misleading.

Among students of Neo-aramaic, the term Sureth is the standard for the Christian East Syriac dialects, and is the most acceptable shared name. Other names are Aturaya, Kaldaya, Fellihi and variations on these, but these can be misleading and often refer to only one group of speakers. Speakers of West Syriac dialects tend to call their language Suryoyo, but some in Iraq have begun to call themselves and their language Aturoyo, perhaps for political reasons.

I don't know if anyone has any thoughts on this, but I hope it's useful. --Gareth Hughes 19:13, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. Please work this material into the entry itself. --W.

Is there anything you can use from Assyrian Neo-Aramaic and Chaldean Neo-Aramaic? Gareth Hughes 12:11, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Numbers

The figure of 3.5 million Assyrians in Iraq can hardly be right. I don't think it's coincidental that there's no source given, because the original figure probably referred to 3.5 million Assyrians worldwide. Other estimates for the worldwide Assyrian population I found on a casual google search are on that order (4 million, 3.4 million, etc). But that number of Assyrians in Iraq would practically outnumber the Kurds, which they assuredly do not. In any case, there hasn't been a really reliable census on the Assyrian/Chaldean/Aramaic people(s) in far too long (if ever), so numbers like this cry out for nuance. QuartierLatin1968 03:10, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll revise the entry to reflect the fact that no statistics are reliable. --Wetman 04:03, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article needing merging

Poking thru Orphaned pages, I found the short article Assyro-Chaldeans, which has a category link to Ethnic Groups. Any info there worth combining into this article, or should it be listed at Wikipedia:VFD? -- llywrch 21:31, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do not know how to use all these wonderful Wikipedia devices. But...

Assyro-Chaldean was a special term used for a protectorate in the Jazira portion of Syria where the Aramaic/Syriac speakers were collected after the Genocide and to some extent protected under the French mandate in Syria. This was shortlived (1919-1921)as there were both struggles among the French and British for dominance in the ME and disputes among Assyrians about whether the leadership ought to be developed in a secular manner or retained in the Church hierarchy. The Assyro-Chaldean protectorate has some sources fortunately and some original documents preserved quite accidentally at Harvard and displayed, though not studied, in 1999. See Hopper and Naby, THE ASSYRIAN EXPERIENCE (1999).

The term is sometimes still used, in Detroit and Paris for example, by members of the Chaldean Catholic Church who know that historically they are Assyrians.

Recent additions by User:140.247.10.132

Your detailed additions at Assyrian/Revision would be even better listing the references you've used. Could you add them to the revision? If you don't have publication dates I'll find them for you. Thanks. --Wetman 20:37, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I did a redo and added sources. But in barest detail. Do you want them in full at the end of the article?

Also, there are a number of subjects here that deserve separate article links such as the three names of secular Assyrian leaders mentioned.

I can do those but I don't do the Wikipedia editing well. If someone will start them, I will do the detailed additions.

---

There are many Syriac Christians in other churches, specifically Syriac Orthodox and Chaldean Catholics who do not like to be called Assyrian, and feel that the name has more to do with political aspirations. The leadership of the Syriac Orthodox Church are clear that 'Assyrian' is a denominational term for members of the Assyrian Church of the East. In the light of this, would it not be appropriate to reword the opening paragraph. Gareth Hughes 12:17, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Towards a consensus

I have been thinking about this article.

To start with, some English usage: the policy is to prefer nouns to adjectives. Assyrian is an adjective in English, unless it is standing for Assyrian language. As this is an article about the Assyrian people, I suggest that it should be titled Assyrians, a noun, or Assyrian (people). I suggest that we take a lead from WikiProject Ethnic Groups Template.

The basic argument that has made this page difficult to produce is whether Assyrians living today are a continuation of the Assyrians of the Assyrian Empire. We should acknowledge that to raise this question is offensive to Assyrians. However, we cannot sidestep it, or agree entirely with one viewpoint or the other. It seems right that the discussion of ancient Assyria should be in the article Assyria, and that a discussion of modern Assyrians should be here. However, it is only fair to do slightly more than cross-link the two articles. I believe that the Assyria article should have a section about modern Assyria, the desire for an Assyrian homeland. It is also fair that we should make explicit the links between ancient and modern Assyrian cultures that are celebrated by many Assyrians: personal names (e.g. Sargon) and the importance of Nineveh. No one can either prove or disprove the connexion between the eras, and it might be a meaningless question (should the ethnicity of a person's ancestors from two thousand years, or more, past be the determining factor in that person's own ethnicity?).

The argument is further muddied by the politics surrounding Assyrian identity. Assyrian identity is sometimes imposed by Assyrians on all Aramaic-speaking Christians. Many western Aramaeans/Syriacs do not consider themselves to be Assyrian. The old Ottoman concepts of umta and millet are important here as they distinguish between an ethnic nation and a religious community.

It would be useful to have some constructive Assyrian comment here. Most Assyrian comment has been POV and vandalism, which helps neither the cause of Wikipedia or Assyria.

Gareth Hughes 15:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)